DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 6/29/2026 in which claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-9 were amended and claims 2 and 5 were cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-9 remain pending and are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/29/2026. These drawings are not acceptable. The added drawing Fig. 21 is included to state the method steps but isn’t shown in a process flow with the rest of the method steps. It is appended to the end of the figures and not either put into the proper flow with the as filed figures nor is it put into a larger process flow to show where it occurs in the overall method.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 14-16, "a pattern of the cellular gate trench, the pattern of the source trench, and wherein a pattern of the gate interconnection trench are sequentially arranged" should be amended to read –wherein a pattern of the cellular gate trench, the pattern of the source trench, and a pattern of the gate interconnection trench are sequentially arranged –. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 21, "cellular gate trench greater" should be amended to read –cellular gate trench and greater–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 41, “each of the one” should be amended to read –the one–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 45-46, “the ion implantation to obtain a source region, where the second impurity implanted by a ion” should be amended to read –an ion implantation to obtain a source region, where the second impurity implanted by the ion–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, "trivalent elements and the pentavalent" should be amended to read – trivalent elements or the pentavalent –. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, "though" should be amended to read –through–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, step S4, the limitation “forming the pattern of the circuit” is unclear if the circuit in this step is the same as or different from that of step C in claim 1. In view of the specification, it is apparent that the circuit in step S4 is not the same circuit as in step C (see [0044]-[0045]) and should not be referred to as “the circuit” but as a different identifier/element name. The pattern of the circuit in step S4 is the same pattern as that of step S3, just referred to by a different name (see [0045], sentence 1). The pattern of the circuit of step S4, therefore, is interpreted to be the pattern of the cellular gate trench, the pattern of the source trench, and the pattern of the gate interconnection of step S3. Claims 3, 4, and 6-9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, lines 49-50, it is claimed that “the oxide layer in the step S5 is 20-100 nm” and that a thickness of “the oxide layer after being processed by the wet etching is 20 nm.” It is unclear how if the oxide layer of step S5 is processed by wet etching, which means that it is etched by the wet etching, could be 20 nm when the range includes thicknesses equal to 20 nm prior to the wet etching. This would imply that either the wet etching doesn’t occur, even though it has been claimed to in step S5, or that the thickness after the etching isn’t 20 nm if the original thickness of the oxide prior to the wet etching is equal to 20 nm. Therefore, either the thickness of the oxide layer in the step S5 prior to etching is greater than 20 nm up to 100 nm such that the oxide layer can have a thickness of 20 nm after the etching or it must be claimed that the etching doesn’t occur. Claims 3, 4, and 6-9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that while applicant states in the arguments that the amended claims have overcome all issues raised in the Office action, some objections and/or rejections from the previous Office action weren’t addressed by the current amendments to the claims or raised new issues as pointed out in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C NICELY whose telephone number is (571)270-3834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 4 pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOSEPH C. NICELY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/JOSEPH C. NICELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights